DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 4-8, 10-14 and 27 in the reply filed on 6/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 4 recites “in the range from 25 nm” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “in a range from 25 nm” in line 2.
Claim 5 recites “a size in the range” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “a size in a range” in line 2.
Claim 6 recites “in the range from 10 nm” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “in a range from 10 nm” in line 2.
Claim 12 recites “at least 84% in the wavelength” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “at least 84% in a wavelength” in line 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (“Simultaneous improvements in self-cleaning and light-trapping abilities of polymer substrates for flexible organic solar cells”, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2018, Cite No. 13 on IDS submitted 1/7/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong et al. teach an amphiphobic coating comprising a polymeric substrate having an oxygen plasma treated surface; a silicon dioxide nanoporous layer comprising silicon dioxide nanoparticles disposed directly on the oxygen plasma treated surface; and a fluoroalkylsilane layer disposed directly on the silicon dioxide nanoporous layer (Experimental; Results and Discussion, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong et al. teach wherein the fluoroalkylsilane layer is a self-assemble layer (Experimental).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong et al. teach wherein surface of the silicon dioxide nanoporous layer comprises hydroxyl groups, and wherein the fluoroalkylsilane layer disposed directly on the silicon dioxide nanoporous layer is covalently bonded to the silicon dioxide nanoporous layer via the hydroxyl groups (Experimental).
Regarding claim 10, Jeong et al. teach wherein the fluoroalkylsilane layer is formed from trichloro (1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctyl) silane (Experimental).
Regarding claim 13, Jeong et al. teach wherein contact angle of water on the amphiphobic coating is 169° which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of more than 150° (Results and Discussion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (“Simultaneous improvements in self-cleaning and light-trapping abilities of polymer substrates for flexible organic solar cells”, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2018, Cite No. 13 on IDS submitted 1/7/2025) in view of Yang et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0147631).
Jeong et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 4, Jeong et al. fail to teach wherein the silicon dioxide nanoparticles have an average size in the range from 25 nm to 50 nm. However, Yang et al. teach an amphiphobic coating (page 1, paragraph [0003]) comprising a polymeric substrate having an oxygen plasma treated surface (page 5, paragraph [0093], page 6, paragraphs [0107], [0112]); a silicon dioxide layer comprising silicon dioxide nanoparticles (page 5, paragraphs [0095], [0096]), wherein the silicon dioxide nanoparticles have an average size in a range of about 1 nm up to about 200 nm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of from 25 nm to 50 nm (page 5, paragraph [0096]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the nanoparticles of Jeong et al. to that of Yang et al. in order to provide a nanoparticle suitable for a transparent surface (Yang et al., page 5, paragraph [0096]).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (“Simultaneous improvements in self-cleaning and light-trapping abilities of polymer substrates for flexible organic solar cells”, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2018, Cite No. 13 on IDS submitted 1/7/2025).
Jeong et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 5, Jeong et al. do not disclose wherein the silicon dioxide nanoparticles form clusters having a size in the range from 150 nm to 250 nm. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in size involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the size of the nanoparticle clusters of Jeong et al. in order to exhibit multifunctional features for flexible OSCs including high contaminant repelling and light harvesting abilities (Jeong et al., Results and Discussion).
Regarding claim 11, Jeong et al. do not disclose wherein roughness factor Rf of the amphiphobic coating is 0.2451 or less. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in roughness factor involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the roughness factor of the amphiphobic coating of Jeong et al. in order to exhibit multifunctional features for flexible OSCs including high contaminant repelling and light harvesting abilities (Jeong et al., Results and Discussion).
Claims 6 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (“Simultaneous improvements in self-cleaning and light-trapping abilities of polymer substrates for flexible organic solar cells”, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2018, Cite No. 13 on IDS submitted 1/7/2025) in view of Poxson et al. (US Patent Application No. 2013/0209780).
Jeong et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 6, Jeong et al. fail to teach wherein the silicon dioxide nanoporous layer has a thickness in the range from 10 nm to 500 nm. However, Poxson et al. teach a coating comprising a polymeric substrate (page 1, paragraphs [0008], [0009]); a silicon dioxide nanoporous layer comprising silicon dioxide nanoparticles disposed directly on the substrate (page 1, paragraphs [0008], [0009], page 2, paragraph [0014]), wherein the silicon dioxide nanoporous layer has a thickness in a range of from about 10 nm to about 10000 nm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 10 nm to 500 nm (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 2, paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicon dioxide nanoporous layer thickness of Jeong et al. to that of Poxson et al. in order to maintain optical and mechanical characteristics (Poxson et al., page 1, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 27, Jeong et al. teach an article of manufacture comprising an amphiphobic coating, the amphiphobic coating comprising a polymeric substrate having an oxygen plasma treated surface; a silicon dioxide nanoporous layer comprising silicon dioxide nanoparticles disposed directly on the oxygen plasma treated surface; and a fluoroalkylsilane layer disposed directly on the silicon dioxide nanoporous layer (Experimental; Results and Discussion, Figure 1).
Jeong et al. fail to teach wherein the article is an optical component, sensor, lens, goggles, mirror, windshield, face shield, display, window, or cookware covers. However, Poxson et al. teach an article of manufacture (page 7, paragraph [0069]) comprising a coating, the coating comprising a polymeric substrate (page 1, paragraphs [0008], [0009]); a silicon dioxide nanoporous layer comprising silicon dioxide nanoparticles disposed directly on the substrate (page 1, paragraphs [0008], [0009], page 2, paragraph [0014]), wherein the article is an optical component, sensor, lens, mirror or display (page 7, paragraph [0069])
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the article of Jeong et al. as that of Poxson et al. in order to provide various applications to the article (Poxson et al., page 7, paragraph [0069]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (“Simultaneous improvements in self-cleaning and light-trapping abilities of polymer substrates for flexible organic solar cells”, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2018, Cite No. 13 on IDS submitted 1/7/2025) in view of Bake et al. (US Patent Application No. 2019/0136073).
Jeong et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 12, Jeong et al. fail to teach wherein the amphiphobic coating exhibits a transmittance of at least 84% in the wavelength region from 400 nm to 700 nm. However, Bake et al. teach a superhydrophobic coating (page 4, paragraph [0018]) comprising a polymeric substrate (page 7, paragraph [0143]) and a silicon dioxide layer comprising silicon dioxide nanoparticles (page 8, paragraph [0146]), wherein the coating exhibits a transmittance of 60% to 90% in a wavelength region of 400 to 800 nm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of at least 84% in the wavelength region from 400 nm to 700 nm (page 4, paragraph [0032], page 8, paragraph [0150]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmittance of the amphiphobic coating of Jeong et al. to that of Bake et al. in order to allow light transmittance through the coating (Bake et al., page 4, paragraph [0032], page 8, paragraph [0150]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (“Simultaneous improvements in self-cleaning and light-trapping abilities of polymer substrates for flexible organic solar cells”, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2018, Cite No. 13 on IDS submitted 1/7/2025) in view of Ezazi et al. (US Patent Application No. 2021/0261807).
Jeong et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 14, Jeong et al. fail to teach wherein contact angle of diiodomethane on the amphiphobic coating is more than 130°. However, Ezazi et al. teach an omniphobic coating (page 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising silicon dioxide porous layer comprising silicon dioxide nanoparticles (page 3, paragraphs [0041], [0042]), wherein contact angle of diiodomethane on the omniphobic coating is not less than 140° which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of more than 130° (page 5, paragraph [0052], page 6, paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact angle of diiodomethane of Jeong et al. to that of Ezazi et al. in order to provide adequate omniphobicity (Ezazi et al., page 5, paragraph [0052]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights